These posts are the personal musings of Dr. Peter H. Gleick. Gleick is co-founder and President of the Pacific Institute in Oakland, California. He is an internationally recognized climate and water expert and works at the intersection of science and policy, including issues related to the integrity of science. His work addresses the critical connections between water and health, the human right to water, the hydrologic impacts of climate change, the concepts of “peak water” and the “soft path for water,” sustainable water use, privatization and globalization, and ways of reducing conflicts over water resources. Dr. Gleick received a B.S. from Yale University in Engineering and Applied Science, and an M.S. and Ph.D. from the Energy and Resources Group of the University of California, Berkeley. He is the recipient of numerous awards for his work, among them the prestigious MacArthur “genius” Fellowship in 2003. He was elected to the U.S. National Academy of Sciences in 2006.

9/02/2011 @ 1:12PM8,760 views

One month ago, a paper by Roy Spencer and William Braswell was published in the journal Remote Sensing arguing that far less future global warming will occur than the scientific community currently anticipates. This highly controversial finding – controversial since it is at odds with observations, basic understanding of atmospheric physics, models, and with what most scientists think we know about climate science — was seized upon by climate change deniers and skeptics and broadcast loud and far.

While other climate experts quickly pointed to fatal flaws in the paper, it received a great deal of attention from certain media. In something of a media frenzy, Fox News, the authors themselves in press releases and web comments, Forbes, in a column by a lawyer at the Heartland Institute, Drudge, and others loudly pointed to this as evidence that the vast array of science on climate change was wrong.

The staggering news today is that the editor of the journal that published the paper has just resigned, with a blistering editorial calling the Spencer and Braswell paper “fundamentally flawed,” with both “fundamental methodological errors” and “false claims.” That editor, Professor Wolfgang Wagner of the Vienna University of Technology in Austria, is a leading international expert in the field of remote sensing. In announcing his resignation, Professor Wagner says “With this step I would also like to personally protest against how the authors and like-minded climate sceptics have much exaggerated the paper’s conclusions in public statements.”

In his editorial resignation, Professor Wagner says the paper was reviewed by scientific experts that in hindsight had a predetermined bias in their views on climate that led them to miss the serious scientific flaws in the paper, including “ignoring all other observational data sets,” inappropriate influence from the “political views of the authors,” and the fact that comparable studies had already been refuted by the scientific community but were ignored by the authors. He summarizes:

In other words, the problem I see with the paper by Spencer and Braswell is not that it declared a minority view (which was later unfortunately much exaggerated by the public media) but that it essentially ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents. This latter point was missed in the review process, explaining why I perceive this paper to be fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly accepted by the journal. This regrettably brought me to the decision to resign as Editor-in-Chief―to make clear that the journal Remote Sensing takes the review process very seriously.

There is a famous saying in science: “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” In this case, the arguments for climate change are backed up by such an astounding degree of science and evidence, that one, or even a few, papers that claim to refute the science of climate change deserve careful scrutiny. As the author of Skeptico notes:

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence because they usually contradict claims that are backed by extraordinary evidence. The evidence for the extraordinary claim must support the new claim as well as explain why the old claims that are now being abandoned, previously appeared to be correct.

The Spencer and Braswell paper fails in these requirements. But this is also the way science works: someone makes a scientific claim and others test it. If it holds up to scrutiny, it become part of the scientific literature and knowledge, safe until someone can put forward a more compelling theory that satisfies all of the observations, agrees with physical theory, and fits the models. Once again, despite the fervent desires of climate skeptics and deniers, the vast body of literature and the basic conclusions about the growing threat of climate change remains intact: the climate is changing rapidly and humans are the dominant cause.

Now, the question remains, will Fox News, Drudge, the Heartland Institute, and others that covered the initial report of this paper show the honesty and courage that Professor Wagner has shown and cover the fact that the paper is “fundamentally flawed?” Any bets?

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

UPDATE already! According to the Guardian newspaper, Prof Andrew Dressler of the department of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University, is publishing a paper in the journal Geophysical Research Letters offering an additional detailed scientific peer-reviewed rebuttal of the Spencer and Braswell paper. http://bit.ly/nILZ0I

I eagerly await the apology posted here by James Taylor of Heartland Institute and the Forbes blogger who wrote the article “New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism” that sang the praises of Spencer.

If some scientists would like do demonstrate in their own peer-reviewed paper where *anything* we wrote was incorrect, they should submit a paper for publication. Instead, it appears the IPCC gatekeepers have once again put pressure on a journal for daring to publish anything that might hurt the IPCC’s politically immovable position that climate change is almost entirely human-caused. I can see no other explanation for an editor resigning in such a situation.

People who are not involved in scientific research need to understand that the vast majority of scientific opinions spread by the media recently as a result of the fallout over our paper were not even the result of other scientists reading our paper. It was obvious from the statements made to the press.

Kudos to Kerry Emanuel at MIT, and a couple other climate scientists, who actually read the paper before passing judgment.

Indeed. Geophysical Research Letters is publishing a peer-reviewed critique as we speak. Will be available next week, from what I understand. And there is the array of already published literature (that editor Wagner noted was ignored by Spencer) that contradicts their paper.

Rigorous and open scientific debate is a good thing! We should encourage more of it. If someone publishes something wrong, contradict it using logic, reason, and factual evidence. Unfortunately, too much of the climate change “debate” is in the hands of politicians and various interests groups, whom all have potential financial or career motives. Similarly, most of the political debate is devoid of cost-benefit analysis of potential remedies.

Any true scientific conclusion can withstand even the harshest critics.

It’s remarkable, then, isn’t it, that Wagner blasted deniers for over-hyping the study, rather than others for pressuring him into resigning. Maybe, as he himself says, his resignation has everything to do with the science.

If the resignation is about the science, why has the paper not been retracted? It was put forward, peer reviewed by respected reviewers who wrote professional reviews, and published. Why now does he need to resign? There’s way more than this than meets the eye… Why does it coincide with this rebuttal coming up from the team? Why are they releasing it in a different journal? Looks obvious to this black duck that he was bullied, but stuck to his guns. Resigned rather than retracting the paper.

hbhb: I guess you didn’t bother to READ Wagner’s editorial about why he is resigning. If you had, you couldn’t claim that anyone “bullied” him. His comments are blistering about the failure of the peer-review process, about the authors failure to properly consider contradictory evidence, and about the false media reports (some pushed by the authors) about what the paper said. Wagner is obviously a man of conscience. Pretty desperate to attack the messenger.

Yes Peter, I have read it and it deserves wide circulation. You’ve given prominence to all the comments in his resignation that suited you. Nice work! What I find interesting is that he notes that the peer review was done well. All the problems started after it was published. The publicity, the huge number of downloads! It got him in too much hot water with the modellers (aka the Team). The end of his piece is all about why researchers should consult modellers before they publish! Are they the first line of the peer-review process? I agree Wagner is clearly a man of conscience, that’s clearly why he resigned. I feel for the man, he’s been put in a very difficult situation. But if the science was wrong, Peter, tell me, why didn’t he just retract the paper? Publish a note in the journal saying the paper is wrong? Why resign?

Don’t forget this one Peter – from the Climategate emails: “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !”

Thank you for your contribution. The disconnect in this issue is that the argument is not whether there is climate change but rather the claim that it is anthropogenic. It is a stretch to accept that claim, but it is absolute arrogance to argue that humans can reverse climate change in any measurable way. Sorry, but the resignation of Professor Wagner as a symbolic protest was in vain. Everyone agrees there is always climate change occurring on every planet. If he wants to argue a case for anthropogenic global warming, he will have to do more than a symbolic resignation. I don’t believe a compelling case has been made by anyone and the fact that the Global Warming Community has altered the term of “Global Warming” to “Climate Change” is a sign of retreat and obfuscation.

“And fits the models”!?! Real-world, relevant, and properly collected data/facts followed by properly conducted analysis are what matter. Facts and data refute models, not the other way around. (And a single fact can also refute the opinions and beliefs of thousands of “experts.”) If observed facts and data disagree with a model, it is the model that needs adjustment, not the facts and data. Only in the grotesquely politicized and grant-corrupted realm of “global warming” must facts/data fit models.

But Dr. Gleick offers no relevant data, facts, or analysis, either of his own or of others. Rather, he offers opinion and belief, mostly of others.

So, as for bets, I’d be willing to bet that Dr. Gleick had not even read the paper in question before he wrote the article.

And Forbes used to stand for facts, even-handedness, and respectability.

“it become part of the scientific literature and knowledge, safe until someone can put forward a more compelling theory that satisfies all of the observations, agrees with physical theory, and fits the models.”

That is an amazing statement from a MacArthur fellow. Fits the models? Did you learn the basics of science? Models have to fit observations. There is not any requirement that a scientific insight has to fit computer models that the IPCC has deemed worthy.

##If it holds up to scrutiny, it become part of the scientific literature and knowledge, safe until someone can put forward a more compelling theory that satisfies all of the observations, agrees with physical theory, and fits the models##

I think the assumption is that the models are based on the emperical data. It is taking a small part and turning into something that it isn’t.

It has to do ALL of those things: it must, of course, fit the observations. It must fit our understanding of physical laws. And it must fit models (which, yes, must be designed to use real physics and also satisfy the observations we see around us). But note, sometimes theoretical models are developed first, even without observations, and these tell scientists what to look for. When observations can be done, if they disagree with the model predications — back to the drawing board. This is an iterative process and how science works.

Given that there are a range of models in current use for climate science, even the models don’t fit the models. Sorry Peter but that’s a gaffe big time! People develop models to illustrate, or to attempt to test their theory. Someone comes along and in a peer reviewed paper, points out an error in the models (SB11), using empirical observational evidence. How can that fit the models? They’re pointing out the problem with the models. How can science move forward if every peer reviewed paper has to fit the models of the time?

It’s one team against the others then? Spencer’s saying you’re wrong so you say he’s wrong. A tad predictable, Scott. I can understand Judith Curry’s concerns, but this link you’ve posted is the usual AGW propaganda show. Reasoned arguments are good – this is condescending rubbish! Climate Rapid Response! What a joke!

To suggest that Spencer is confused about clouds is ludicrous when even the IPCC agrees that you don’t understand them!

What I wish is that you’d stop fighting and look at what he and others are saying, that is the way to increase knowledge. Only when you can reconcile what everyone’s saying, can science progress…

Dear Peter, one can only shake his head about you claim: Quote: “This is how science works: Someone makes a scientific claim and others test it. If it holds up [ ] it becomes part of the scientific literature…..”

This is the silliest comment of your life: I am author of a new climate book (ISBN 978-3-86805-604-4) Title “Das Ende der globalen Erwaermung”, informed almost every climate institution of its content in Germany! What happens: Nobody will test it, not a single institution wil take a look, the Max-Planck-organization, the Deutsche Physiker Gesellschaft and others more not even acknowledge having received my book and Emails. On my super friendly and factual Emails I add: Please reply having received my Mail. Result: Silencio, absolute ignorance, pure obstinance…… And these are your climate “scientists”. If you still familiar with German, please get a copy and then I will honor you with the title “First scientist to test a scientific claim”….. You live in some strange world to write down these lines…. Sorry…. Please write me an Email if you know better… Yours Joachim Seifert Climate author

Au contraire (or the equivalent in German): Scientists LOVE to prove other scientists wrong. That’s how they get famous. But they only get famous if they’re right. If they’re wrong, well, they’re just wrong.

Climate change is already here and the worst is yet to come. Solutions are going to be put into place. If you do not accept the science and choose not to sit at the solution table, you will have no say in what happens. Why not come join the discussion. There is no debate that humans are overloading the atmosphere with heat-trapping carbon and that big climate changes will occur if we keep emitting away like there is no tomorrow. The debate needs to move away from the cause and on to the solutions.

Spencer, Monckton, Christie, and Lindzen want you to believe all of this evidence and all of these experts are wrong. C’mon, you know that is not true just like you know that the woman is not really being cut in half.

“The end is nigh!!” “There is no debate that humans are overloading the atmosphere with heat-trapping carbon and that big climate changes will occur if we keep emitting away like there is no tomorrow. The debate needs to move away from the cause and on to the solutions.”

SB11 IS clear evidence of the debate, as is Dessler 11, a paper not even published yet already acknowledged as flawed.

There is a lot of debate, particularly because there is no evidence of warming over the last 5-10 years, the Ocean Heat Content has not increased over the last 5 years, and sea levels are static rather than accelerating. There’s heaps of evidence that “global warming” has stopped. You just don’t want to acknowledge it.

Unfortunately, retraction doesn’t seem to do much good, as evidence from the medical literature shows. On the web, once something is published, it’s out there forever.

The peer-review process catches a lot of papers that either should not be published or that need corrections or better explanations before being published. Like many other scientists, I have benefitted from the corrections, comments, and suggestions for my own papers during review. The process is not perfect though; my reaction to the Spencer-Braswell paper when I first saw it was, too bad this got through.

Here is the problem with Dr. Spencer and to be frank it is a big one. His ties to the oil industry are very close, even if he is not directly paid by them.

According to Facing South http://www.southernstudies.org/2011/09/climate-science-contrarian-roy-spencers-oil-industry-ties.html

Spencer has considerable ties to the oil industry. First: “George C. Marshall Institute. Spencer currently serves as a director at the George C. Marshall Institute, an Arlington, Va.-based nonprofit that receives substantial funding from oil and gas interests — including Exxon, which has given the group at least $840,000 since 1998, according to Greenpeace’s ExxonSecrets.org database”

[In response to this article the current CEO, William O'Keefe , noted "Your comment about the George C. Marshall Institute receiving "substantial funding from oil and gas interests is factually incorrect". No money from ExxonMobil has been received for several years and none since Dr. Spencer joined the Board. " The author, Sue Sturgis responded that"The organization received at least $840,000 from ExxonMobil alone since 1998 " Also noted that Mr. O'Keefe happened to be the former COO of the American Petroleum Institute.] Second: ” Cornwall Alliance. Spencer is a member of the board of advisors of the Cornwall Alliance, a conservative Christian public-policy group that promotes a free-market approach to environmental stewardship and whose “ Resisting the Green Dragon” campaign portrays the climate-protection movement as a sort of false religion. …. has close ties to a conservative policy group called the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), which has received over $580,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998, according to ExxonSecrets.org. Paul Driessen, who played a guiding role in forming the group now known as the Cornwall Alliance, also served as a consultant for ExxonMobil and CFACT, which has also received at least $60,500 from Chevron and $1.28 million from the the foundation of the Scaife family, whose wealth comes in part from Gulf Oil, as Think Progress reports.”

Third * Encounter Books. Spencer is the author of three books critical of mainstream climate science: Climate Confusion, published in 2008, and The Great Global Warming Blunder and The Bad Science and Bad Policy of Obama’s Global Warming Agenda, both released last year. All of those works were published by Encounter Books, which is a project of the conservative nonprofit Encounter for Culture and Education. That group’s major funders include the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, which in turn is controlled by one of the owners of Kansas-based Koch Industries,…. The Kochs have played a critical role in funding climate-denial efforts, contributing $24.9 million to organizations that have worked to cast doubt on mainstream climate science.

Fourth Tech Central Station. Spencer served as a columnist and a member of the science roundtable for Tech Central Station. Until 2006, TCS was run by DCI Group, a lobbying and public-relations firm that has represented ExxonMobil.

hbhb, talka bout false equivalency. Here’s teh partial list of contributors This list is not fully exhaustive, but we would like to acknowledge the support of the following funders (in alphabetical order):

British Council, British Petroleum, Broom’s Barn Sugar Beet Research Centre, Central Electricity Generating Board, Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS), Commercial Union, Commission of European Communities (CEC, often referred to now as EU), Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils (CCLRC), Department of Energy, Department of the Environment (DETR, now DEFRA), Department of Health, Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), Eastern Electricity, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), Environment Agency, Forestry Commission, Greenpeace International, International Institute of Environmental Development (IIED), Irish Electricity Supply Board, KFA Germany, Leverhulme Trust, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF), National Power, National Rivers Authority, Natural Environmental Research Council (NERC), Norwich Union, Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, Overseas Development Administration (ODA), Reinsurance Underwriters and Syndicates, Royal Society, Scientific Consultants, Science and Engineering Research Council (SERC), Scottish and Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research, Shell, Stockholm Environment Agency, Sultanate of Oman, Tate and Lyle, UK Met. Office, UK Nirex Ltd., United Nations Environment Plan (UNEP), United States Department of Energy, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Wolfson Foundation and the World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF).

BP and Shell hardly a blip. So my point still stands. Spencer is another tool and a fool.

Agreed, Shell and BP are among the funders of CRU,. That was my point. Megagorgo, youu’ve tied yourself in logical knots to try to find any funding of Spencer’s work by the evil “Big Oil”, and I’m saying that that talking point (a favourite for your team), is a joke!